The thread about Oklahoma out of state and other threads generated this topic for discussion.

1. Is it unethical to offer 2 or 3 times what a landowner is currently getting from existing hunters?

2. Is it unethical for a landowner to accept 2 to 3 times what they are getting from existing hunters?

Or is it just an example of supply and demand?

this type of ethics question is truly "eye of the beholder" type stuff.

There is no right or wrong answer and you will find out a lot about a person in how they answer and how they go about conducting their life. Meaning, I bet a lot on here would say it is unethical but would have no problem paying for a good lease and never once having asked the owner about previous leasees other than what they took and not about what they paid. I could be wrong there.

For me, deer hunting is a commodity (there is no "right to hunt" and as such it is subject to market conditions as much as any other privilege), so is dictated by simple economic supply and demand. I get that some people rely on the meat for their family, but there are very few places in the US where help isn't literally right around a corner for food. So that argument, while sentimental, doesn't fly for me as a reason to "force" people to keep prices down for deer leases.

Anxious to see some other answers on here.

Would say, it depends. Was said landowner secretly soliciting property with existing hunters in place without their knowledge and with no chance to match offer, if yes not sure unethical but darn sure Sneaky at best. I do not find it unethical if a hunting group approaches a landowner making a great offer; falls back onto landowner as to how and what he/she does with that offer and whether existing hunters may match or not. Think the current relationship of hunters/landowner will play into it, if good, more suspect of landowner to shop for or take new offer, if not good, cut bait and fish with new hunters.

It becomes unethical when you're a guest of the leaseholder and go direct to the landowner with an offer to lease, basically subverting the present leaseholder.

If your joe blow off the street with no ties to the existing group, its not unethical to make an offer.



As far as unethical from a landowners point of view, I would say if you received an offer (assuming lease holders were in good standing) that was higher, and you didn't give them an opportunity to match it, then that would be bad business.

Absolutely not.

Is it unethical for a group to be paying 2-3 less than fair market value for a lease because the land owner doesn't know any better? Absolutely not.

If you're leasing a place out from under someone that thought you were their friend, you're a POS.

^^^^^^

Actually there is a 'right to hunt' in the Texas State Constitution (subject to certain restrictions).


[img]https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/right-to-hunt-and-fish-ratified-by-texas-voters-amended-to-state-constitution/#:~:text=November%205%2C%202015-,Right%20to%20Hunt%20and%20Fish%20Ratified%20by%20Texas%20Voters%2C%20Amended,hunt%2C%20fish%20and%20harvest%20wildlife.[/img]

A few years ago, the person/group next to our property offered our land owner more than double what we were paying for the hunting rights. The land owner came to us and told us that our new price was $XX, which was more than double what we were currently paying. Of course, we paid his new amount. We were certainly paying below market value and knew it. I just didn't want to have over a two fold increase in price in one year to the next. I was thankful that our current land owner allowed us to match the pricing instead of kicking us off. We have had a pretty good relationship with them over the many years. Is it unethical? I think it's more business. I wasn't sure if the neighbors offer was legit or not. But we got to keep our lease.

Had this happen to me. sort of. One of our ten lease members offered the son of the man, 92 years old, we had been leasing from for five years a 50% increase for the whole place.
The son took it and kicked what we thought at the time all of us off. Then we found out that one stayed and it became his oil company lease.
Friendship ended right then.

Money talks, bs walks. Ethics doesn't enter into it. Now the guest doing an end around and trying to get a place for himself - that's just scummy.

With the way cattle ranching is headed, you can't blame a landowner for trying to get as big a return on hunting as he possibly can.

My family was bumped off a lease many years ago after a corporate entity offered double, up front in cash. 'Few years later the LO begged us to come back. 'Gotta have a tough skin leasing. Don't get too settled. It ain't your land.

In the business world, the focus on price can be lessened by becoming a "trusted advisor" to the other party by bringing something to the table that would otherwise be lost if the customer walked away. That can be quite a bit more challenging when it comes to deer hunting but there are benefits one can bring to the table. In my case, the landowner gave me the opportunity to bring something that I suspect few Texas deer hunters would carry - an agreement not to use feeders. My partner and I know every heavily used trail and crossing on the tract and never have a problem seeing deer. Still, while there is a solid relationship between myself and the landowner, I never assume he will agree to renew my lease come next year.

a lease is a yearly business transaction. nothing more nothing less. Each side of that agreement has something to offer and motivators that need to be met.

If one sides Motivators arent met then landowner maybe looking for new lessees or lessees may be looking for a better lessor/property.

No different in Cattle or farming world. Your hunting is a land owners commodity.


ethics = breaking whats in the signed contract,

Semantics, but the "right to hunt and fish" in texas is codified only so far as the current laws allow. It is not a inherent right such as the right to vote, or the right to bear arms or other such "rights" we typically speak about.

So in one regard, we are both right, but in the appropriate context we are both wrong. The question is which context is accurate in this discussion.

This section says I am correct (not trying to boast, just saying this is more meaningful than anything else):

This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.


A true "right to hunt" would allow anyone to hunt anywhere at essentially any time. What we have is a right to hunt according to the state and federal laws and they will set the law how they please. So we have a right to hunt according to the state, not as an inherent human right.

Semantics, I know, but it is important in the discussion here.

I can't remember the particulars, but a long time ago I knew a guy that had family land in Wisconsin. That state had the craziest laws regarding the "right to hunt", how a landowner had to let the public on their land, etcetera. 'Polar opposite of Texas. Maybe some former Yankee on here can elaborate.

Unfortunately, I agree this is the way of the world today.

To me the ethics has to do if the landowner doesn't allow the current lessee the opportunity to match offer from other person. If the land owner has someone come up to them and say "I don't know how much the current guys are paying you, but I will double what they pay you" sort of thing and doesn't give the current folks a chance to match, then yes I have a problem with their ethics. Sometimes jumping to the highest bidder with no history with them can come back and bite you. The new folks that are paying you more may be crappy stewards of your land. Of course, I may be confusing morals with ethics, but to me they are synonymous.

Does that same land owner owe the same "ethical regard" to a cattleman, say some cattle guy comes up and offers double what the current auction price is per head. Is the land owner obligated to give a heads up to the buyers? No, he just takes the money and goes about business.

How is hunting lease any different for the land owner? They owe nothing to anyone other than to follow the contract, and if the contract allows, they have every right to go to the highest bidder. How is that unethical for the land owner?

Lets make it about hay...or whatever crop you want. Does the land owner owe an obligation to sell to a particular grain shed if they don't have a contract or the contract is year to year?

To me there is a difference between selling property and selling access to property. If you take cattle to the auction barn, do you settle for the first bid? And when you settle for a bid then that property no longer belongs to you. You still own the land that you lease for hunting and every year (or however long you have a contract for) is renewed...or not, but you still own the land.

There is no right to hunt...on somebody else's land. Adding this prepositional phrase I think would have cleared up the miscommunication.

All the above is why you buy your own place and not rent it.

I agree with this 100%

A few years back someone off this site was able to find our rancher and offered him more than we were paying. I don’t think the caller expected the response and I got my butt chewed for posting on here in a way that someone was able to track him down. There was a very interesting and entertaining thread about it too

I can afford to rent much more than I will ever be capable of buying, but I’m willing to put up with some of the extra that it requires.

That same is true for an apartment. Some folks, myself included, aren't cut out for having an apartment.

That was in part of the motivation for posting this subject. I remember when that happened.

Is it? Not being argumentative but my house is much nicer and bigger than an apartment in my area and the local rent houses compared to what I paid on my mortgage.

And I agree, I’m not cut out to live in an apartment but also not sure where I can get access to 10,000 acres for $3200 a year.

I kind of miss ol Rusty the rancher. He was always entertaining.